Carboniferous coal measures contain no flowering plants or grasses

[ChordatesLegacy]

It seems grass existed on Earth at least 10 million years earlier than was known, based on a new discovery in fossilized dinosaur dung.
It's also the first solid evidence that some dinosaurs ate grass.
While dissecting fossilized droppings, known as coprolites, researchers found tiny silica structures called phytoliths. They are short, rigid cells that provide support to a plant. This type is found exclusively in grasses.
The discovery shows that five types of grass related to modern varieties were present in the Gondwana region of the Indian subcontinent during the late Cretaceous period about 71 to 65 million years ago. http://www.technovelgy.com/Bjorn Carey (LiveScience Staff Writer)
So the oldest evidence for grass comes from the upper Cretaceous, which is 230 million years after the world wide Carboniferous coal measures were formed. Or you could look at it this way, the Permian, Triassic, Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous are completely devoid of any grass fossils. Plenty of time for evolution to come up with a novel way of growth, which is one of the hallmarks of grass, i.e. grass grows from its base, unlike other plants that grow from their tips.
This is not easily explained by creationist parodies, but I am willing to look at any ideas creationists might have, come on give it a go.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Are there any creationists who are going to give me an answer? Or is creationism defeated by this simple observation.

No flowering plants in the Carboniferous coal seams = no creationism

 

[atomweaver]

No flowering plants in the Carboniferous coal seams = no creationism

That should have been your thread title...

 

[Avatar]

All the flowering plants were in the garden of Eden. Have you examined coal from Eden? Well, have you? That's what I thought.

Crreationism wins the day (again).

*does the superior dance*

 

[Naraoia]

All the flowering plants were in the garden of Eden. Have you examined coal from Eden? Well, have you? That's what I thought.

Crreationism wins the day (again).

*does the superior dance*

Have you ever seen a creationist actually come up with a location for the garden of Eden?

 

[TheOutsider]

Have you ever seen a creationist actually come up with a location for the garden of Eden?

Apparently it was in western Missouri.

 

[Naraoia]

Apparently it was in western Missouri.

<no comment>

 

[gamespotter10]

I have read many explanations put forward by creationist about the formation of coal. But there is one thing that all their explanations cannot explain, and that is there are no Carboniferous coal measures anywhere in the world that contain flowering plants and/or grasses. What they do contain are ferns, conifers and lycopods, all of which had simple root structures.

As the world today is dominated by flowering plants and grasses this creates a paradox that creationists cannot get out of.

However evolution easily explains this, because flowering plants did not evolve until the Mid-Cretaceous and grasses the Mid-Tertiary.

Has any creationist got an answer to explain this inconsistence, particularly as we know in your version of the earths history, flowering plants were around from the start “Eves Apple Tree”.

and I am going to ask that on youtube!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Apparently it was in western Missouri.

But... science... I... Poe meter... *boom*

What's sad is that the site is genuine

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Quote from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i3/swamp.asp

The catastrophic flooding model can explain these occurrences with ease. Vegetation ripped up by flood waters and accumulated as floating mats of debris on the water’s surface progressively became waterlogged and sank to accumulate as a layer below (as in Spirit Lake at Mount St Helens1). That then became buried by other sediments, or was caught up and buried within accumulating sediments. As more debris became waterlogged and sank, further layers of debris would accumulate in a progressive alternating sequence of sediments and vegetation debris layers, that were subsequently altered to the coal. In this model the vegetative debris can accumulate and be buried at any angle or relationship to the enclosing sediments.

This is a short extract explaining coal formation put forward by creationist, in it they suggest that the flood ripped up the existing vegetation, which then accumulated as floating mats, before sinking and forming coal.

If we go with this idea for a second; such a catastrophic flood would have made a hell of a mess of the vegetation, which as we know from observation is predominantly of the flowering nature.

Therefore you would expect to find flowering plant fossils in the Carboniferous coal seams, but we do not. What we find universally are fern, conifers and lycopods, but absolutely no flowering plants of any species.

The creationist account of coal formation does not explain this, in fact it totally destroys they suppositions on coal formation, whereas the lack of flower plant fossils in the Carboniferous coal seams is exactly what is expected from the evolutionary theory of life on earth.

Primitive plants evolve into more complex plants, with the more complex plant completely missing from the Carboniferous 360-300 million years ago.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

The quality of a question is inversely proportional to the number of creationists attempting to answer it.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

The first conifers appear in the late Carboniferous but from most unlikely-looking ancestors. The plants that gave rise to the conifers were Cordaites, a gymnosperm with long, strap-like leaves. These plants ranged from large shrubs to very small trees and many probably grew like modern mangroves, living on mud flats in brackish water. Water acquisition is difficult in such habitats and may suggest the source of the xeric adaptations found in most conifers.
First Conifers

So it seems there were very few conifers in the Carboniferous, where does this leave the creationists suppositions on coal formation.

In short; absolutely in tatters, no flowering plant, very few conifers, no grasses (yes I know they are flowering plants): So creationists your coal formation ideas are in ruins.

 

[milkyway]

The quality of a question is inversely proportional to the number of creationists attempting to answer it.

C'mon, the answer is so easy from a creationist pov that surely you don't expect them to waste time posting it?

I mean, if god can create the Earth 6000 years ago, but leave overwhelming evidence to show it's really 4.5 billion years old...surely it would be easy for him to create flowering plants that vanish while coal is being formed. Or created. Hence not a sniff of a flower.


So obvious even an atheist can understand it!

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

C'mon, the answer is so easy from a creationist pov that surely you don't expect them to waste time posting it?

I mean, if god can create the Earth 6000 years ago, but leave overwhelming evidence to show it's really 4.5 billion years old...surely it would be easy for him to create flowering plants that vanish while coal is being formed. Or created. Hence not a sniff of a flower.


So obvious even an atheist can understand it!

I would be happy with a creationist scientist answering these fundamental problems with their coal forming suppositions; with GOD DONE IT.

Then we can all go to bed knowing creation science is nothing more than mysticism, and the creationists can stop pretending it is science.

 

[TheOutsider]

The quality of a question is inversely proportional to the number of creationists attempting to answer it.

Did you make that up yourself or did you steal it from somewhere? If you made it up yourself, we may have to make a new Law.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Did you make that up yourself or did you steal it from somewhere? If you made it up yourself, we may have to make a new Law.

Actually, I made it up myself.

 

[gamespotter10]

Actually, I made it up myself.

*hands over nobel prize*

for mrgoodbytes law

 

[Patashu]

The quality of a question is inversely proportional to the number of creationists attempting to answer it.

And how.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Did you make that up yourself or did you steal it from somewhere? If you made it up yourself, we may have to make a new Law.

I vote for a new law! It's brilliant and true!

 

[Naraoia]

I vote for a new law! It's brilliant and true!

Agreed. But what shall we name it? MrGoodBytes is too long